Search results
Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014), [1] is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the court ruled that the warrantless search and seizure of the digital contents of a cell phone during an arrest is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. [2][3]
25 cze 2014 · Riley moved to suppress all evidence that the police had obtained from his cell phone. The trial court denied the motion, and Riley was convicted. The California Court of Appeal affirmed. In No. 13–212, respondent Wurie was arrested after police observed him participate in an apparent drug sale.
22 mar 2017 · California, Supreme Court of the United States, (2014) Case Summary of Riley v. California: Riley was convicted of a shooting related offense after evidence seized from his cell phone (incident to his arrest) was used against him in court.
1 maj 2016 · The Supreme Court affirmed the Circuit Court’s reversal; however, the justices provided different reasons why they deemed GPS tracking unconstitutional and the constitutional distinction, if any, that exists between long-term and short-term GPS surveillance.
10 lis 2014 · The Supreme Court reversed the California Court of Appeal in Riley and affirmed the First Circuit in Wurie. 29 Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Roberts 30 held that the “answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is . . . simple — get a warrant.” 31.
29 kwi 2014 · In this case, the Supreme Court must consider whether cell phones can be subject to searches incident to arrest. Petitioner Riley argues that the two justifications for searches incident to arrest –- officer safety and preservation of evidence -- do not apply to the search of a cell phone.
Record returned for Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One.
